SQLServerCentral / Discuss Content Posted by Jay Dave / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / Microsoft DPM / Latest Posts

RE: Microsoft DPM

Anipaul — Tue, 06 May 2008 02:56:29 GMT

Why we didn't update the content of the articl;e before re-publishing. We should have written about DPM 2007. :)

RE: Microsoft DPM

Ronald Green-301498 — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 23:13:00 GMT

Hi,I think that your article is very misleading. This article was posted when DPM 2007 beta was already available, but you wrote about (the disadvantages of) DPM 2006. DPM 2006 doesn't really "support" SQL servers, unlike DPM 2007 which does.Since people usually read about products they would actually BUY, they would assume that you're discussing DPM 2007 because this actually IS what they should consider, rather than 2006.I think it would be appropriate to add a paragraph at the beginning of this article, just to mention that 2007 is coming up with real SQL support (and exchange and sharepoint, etc etc).

RE: Microsoft DPM

sqldba-294117 — Fri, 25 May 2007 11:48:00 GMT

I assume by today my update document will be published on this website about DPM & i hope this will answer all of your most question. thanks for your time & patience.

Thanks

Jay

RE: Microsoft DPM

Matthew-240216 — Thu, 24 May 2007 20:11:00 GMT

The total size of data is mentioned. But I don't see a mention of the size of the largest individual database(s) DPM has backed up. Is there a limit? Also does how heavily the database is used matter for DPM?

Matt

RE: Microsoft DPM

sqldba-294117 — Thu, 24 May 2007 15:21:00 GMT

I have submitted the same article again with some more correction & good grammer and let see how soon it will be replace. I apology to the readers of this article that didn't helped to get better understanding about Microsoft DPM. But i am assuring to readers that new one is far better than this one. i hope this will help. once again all yours feedback is much appreciated.

Thanks

Jay Dave

RE: Microsoft DPM

rudy - Doctor "X" — Thu, 24 May 2007 11:50:00 GMT

This seems to be a waste of enterprise money. We already implement this architecture with multiple domains and servers of all application types (SQL, AD, Exchange, Web, Application, etc) and different OSs (2K, 2K2, Linux, AIX). My point is why ?

RE: Microsoft DPM

Tim-153783 — Wed, 23 May 2007 07:42:00 GMT

You can tell this the typical Microsoft 1.0 product. Look at the bottom of the graphic. See the Veritas backing up this product to tape. Why would I want to buy a Veritas product, which doesn't require this weird overhead, and then buy the Microsoft product to supplement it? This is redundant in my opinion. Also, my database is 4 terabytes in size. I don't have a spare 4 terabytes laying around to make an initial backup to - that is the beauty of tape. And can't cross domains? Call me when version 3 SP1 comes out and then I'll take another look.

RE: Microsoft DPM

Shawn McGehee — Wed, 23 May 2007 07:04:00 GMT

The graphic in this article is atrocious. I cannot read half of the captions and the image is terribly grainy.

RE: Microsoft DPM

Festeron — Wed, 23 May 2007 06:36:00 GMT

I have struggled to understand this article not because of the technical content but because of the strange punctuation, inconsistent tenses, and pathetic grammar. Either English is not your first language, or you're not a professional writer, or both.This article needs editing. Perhaps then it might be worthwhile.

Microsoft DPM

sqldba-294117 — Wed, 02 May 2007 18:54:00 GMT

Comments posted here are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/jDave/2986.asp